Meet Tim Keller, executive director of the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm gaining attention for picking fights with local governments and agencies they accuse of trampling the rights of citizens.
While lots of lawyers might be considered “bottom feeders,” says former client Randy Bailey, Keller is an “awesome guy” who helped save his brake shop from an eminent domain action by the city of Mesa. Now, the burly mechanic is happy to help the slender and bespectacled Keller raise funds to continue to handle cases on a pro bono basis.
Keller’s polite, polished, but passionate government get-out-of-the-way act has been a thorn in the side of the state’s Cosmetology Board, the Structural Pest Control Commission (twice), school voucher critics and the city of Mesa, which tried to force a business owner to remove every advertisement from the windows of his Winchell’s Donut House.
Recently finishing a trip to San Francisco for an appellate level attack on Clean Elections, the father of three is setting his sights on protecting the owner of a honky-tonk restaurant and saloon in Pinal County where officials have threatened to levy hefty fines because the patrons have been dancing.
The Arizona State University economics and law school grad recently sat down with the Arizona Capitol Times to chat about winning, losing, and the value of putting on good a show.
What exactly is it that your group does≠
The Institute for Justice is a civil liberties law firm that files lawsuits when the government infringes on our most fundamental civil rights. We seek to advance a rule of law where individuals can control their destinies as free and responsible members of society.
What sectors do you typically find business practices that you feel violate the freedom of individuals≠
All of our lawsuits are filed against governmental entities and we concentrate on cases that constitute what we call grassroots tyranny; the penchant of state and local governments to infringe on the rights of individuals.
Do you think these events are common≠
Absolutely. We have a national headquarters that litigates cases all across the country and we have opened up three state chapters, one in Arizona, one in Washington state and one in Minnesota. All of which are very busy combating grassroots tyranny.
Where and how do you draw the line between common sense cases of needless government oversight or abuse, and areas that are better left to the experts≠
The Institute for Justice takes a very concentrated approach to litigation. We litigate only in four core pillars. Economic liberty; where the government is infringing on the right to earn an honest living free from unreasonable government regulation. The protection of private property rights; this is primarily when government attempts to take somebody’s private property and transfer it to a developer for a purely private use. We also litigate to protect free speech rights, commercial speech rights and free speech rights on the Internet. We also have defended every major school choice program in the country.
You’re challenging a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona and a host of teachers’ unions to stop school vouchers for private schools. Both the ACLU and the IJ purport to fight for citizens’ rights from overreaching government. Which should citizens side with≠
They should side with the Institute for Justice [laughs].
How come≠
The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that parents have the right to control and direct the upbringing of their children, and that includes selecting the educational environment that best suits their child’s individual needs. However, that promise rings hollow for too many Americans because they simply lack the resources to choose a private school. School choice programs put control of their children’s educational futures in the hands of parents. Simply put, empowering parents to choose one of the most critical aspects of their children’s lives — where they get a good education — doesn’t violate the state or the federal Constitution.
The backbone of these charges against school vouchers is the contention they violate the separation of church and state. How come that doesn’t apply if this money is being applied to send a child to a Catholic school or a Baptist school or what have you≠
The religion clauses of both the federal and state constitutions are designed to make sure the state remains neutral with regard to religion. That means that the state neither favors nor disfavors a religion. And under the school voucher programs the only way any money makes its way to a private religious group is through a completely independent choice of parents.
How is your group funded≠
We accept no government funds as a matter of principle. We’re supported entirely by private donations. About two-thirds come from individual donations that range from $5 to $10 to $100,000. The other third comes from private foundations.
Your group’s approach seems to be lighthearted, judging by the “merry band of litigators” chasing the meddling bureaucrats-vibe of your Web site. How important is salesmanship in your line of work≠
Well, our motto at IJ is: “We change the world and have fun doing it.” We have created a culture within the organization, and as part of that we do take a lighthearted approach to much of our work, although it’s very serious.
When you talk about salesmanship, certainly the work the institute does in the court of public opinion is essential to all of our litigation. Our work in that aspect really sets us apart from many of the other public interest organizations that are out there.
Every time that we file a case our communications director reminds us we are after our “PHD,” which means as we set the case up in the court of public opinion we try to personalize the case, humanize it and dramatize it. And we always seek to capture and dominate the terms of the debate.
Your victories are well chronicled. Are you boasting a perfect record or are there some numbers in the loss column≠
There is no doubt there are some numbers in the loss column. Certainly if you stack up the wins and losses in the school choice cases, the losses seem to outweigh the victories. However, we always seem to win where it counts and that is in the end of the game in the state supreme courts or in the U.S. Supreme Court. One of the great things working with the IJ is how we can parlay a loss into a victory, and a perfect example of that is our case in New London, Connecticut. We represented Suzette Kelo (Kelo v. New Haven, landmark eminent domain case where the court ruled cities can take and redistribute private property to bolster local economies) when the city tried to take her little pink cottage and transfer it to private developers. We lost that case, but we didn’t give up there. We immediately launched a brand new campaign through our grassroots organization, the Castle Coalition entitled “Hands off my home,” and through that effort we have been lobbying to encourage legislators to do what the U.S. Supreme Court refused to do and that is to protect our right to own and control property.
Your cases of interest vary between big and small. Is there a particular joy that comes with small cases like going to bat for the entrepreneurial Tempe teen the state’s pest control commission tried to stop from protecting homes from roof rats≠
All of our cases are big cases. I would equate a case like Christian Alf’s [teen who charged neighbors $30 to cover vents, pipes and other possible rat entrances] with a case like the Randy Bailey case, which established a landmark precedent. Every single one of our cases gives us an opportunity to showcase the tangible benefits of liberty and set a core precedent that will expand individual liberty.
You recently argued against Arizona’s system of publicly funded elections, a.k.a. Clean Elections, in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Is this your biggest case yet≠
No. My biggest case was the Randy Bailey brake shop case. That was the first case I took on as a practicing attorney. It was my first case at the Institute for Justice. I was able to cut my teeth at the trial court as a second chair and I had the opportunity to argue the case in the Court of Appeals. We had a devastating loss at the trial court in front of a judge I had clerked for right out of law school. Arguing that case and winning in the Court of Appeals was a tremendous joy and I don’t think anything will top that as far as a personal victory.
How do think you did in San Francisco arguing against Clean Elections≠
I thought the argument went extremely well. I thought the judges seemed to agree with us that the Clean Elections Act sets up roadblocks and discourages individuals from speaking out during a political campaign. We’re very hopeful that in light of the warm reception we received from the judges that we’ll receive a nice opinion in a couple of months.
For the most part, Clean Elections has been practically bulletproof in court challenges. Why should this be any different≠
I don’t think the act has demonstrated itself to be entirely bulletproof. We filed a previous legal challenge to the Clean Elections Act and we did successfully knock out the lobbyist fee that it imposed on not all, but some lobbyists. Citizens have a right to lobby the government to seek redress for their grievances and the court struck it down saying it was a prior restraint on speech.
I think ultimately, the claims in that case will be vindicated by the U.S. Supreme Court as we see other states enact public campaign finances similar to the one in Arizona. I think they’ll agree forcing individuals to fund speech with which they disagree is sinful and tyrannical, to quote former president Thomas Jefferson.
Your opponents are essentially arguing that matching funds do not violate free speech, but in fact create more speech. What do you make of this line of reasoning≠
As a result of matching funds the state essentially enters the debate and puts its thumb on the scales in favor of the taxpayer financed candidate. At the very least, matching funds make anybody considering making an independent expenditure think twice before doing so, but most likely the result is going to be less speech. Why on Earth would you spend $5,000 to purchase an advertisement when you know the state government is going to step up and send $5,000 screaming across the net to the very individual you seek to defeat in an election≠
Thanks for your time
You’re welcome.
What’s your favorite movie≠
“Raiders of the Lost Ark” (Indiana Jones). I watched it six times in the theater.

Your pet peeves≠
Breaking the spine on a paperback book and people not returning books they borrow.

Favorite vacation spot≠
Disneyland. It’s the happiest place on Earth.

First place you moved after leaving home≠
When I got married I bought a condo.

Last fiction book you read≠
“Motherless Brooklyn” by Jonathan Lethem.